About this Show

Road to the White House

Series/Special. The candidates, issues and events shaping the presidential race.

NETWORK

DURATION
01:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 100 (651 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
704

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Newt Gingrich 12, Iowa 10, Mr. Campbell 7, Washington 6, Obama 5, Herman Cain 4, Gingrich 4, Ron Paul 4, C-span 4, Barack Obama 3, Douglas 3, Jimmy Carter 3, Tony Blair 3, Pagination 2, Kittyhawk 2, United 2, Boeing 2, Kevin 2, United States 2, Ronald Reagan 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Road to the White House    Series/Special. The candidates, issues  
   and events shaping the presidential race.  

    December 5, 2011
    12:30 - 2:00am EST  

12:30am
worked tremendously hard to keep those businesses and the local economy going and can barely afford in some cases to make provision for their own pension? >> the hon. lady is in charlie right that this government is squarely on the side of people who work hard and play by the rules and want to do the right thing for their families and to all those people i say to them today thank you for what you do to contribute to public sector pensions that are far more generous than you are able to afford but for our part we promised to make sure the public sector pensions remain strong but are affordable. what is notable is the party opposite has taken the side of trade union leaders that want to actually disrupt our country. >> with taxpayers pay 1 hundred million pounds to the system to make workers redundant is the prime minister aware 1 hundred
12:31am
million pounds for five new planes to be built for our red arrows. is there not a better use? >> i strongly support british aerospace. extraordinarily strong british company to have the full backing of the british government and enormous order book in terms of the strategic defense review and massive backing from us in terms of selling aircraft and typhoons all over the world to countries that need them. there have been issues and difficulties which is why we put in and the enterprise zone and everything to help those people and that company. >> does the prime minister share my belief or the belief of leaders of the opposition that now is not the time to strike until negotiations are being completed. >> the hon. gentleman makes a very good point. just in case anyone didn't get it the first time in these strikes are wrong at a time when
12:32am
negotiations are going on. negotiations are going on. the leader of the opposition should think they're wrong. he doesn't think they're wrong because he is in the pocket of the trade union leaders. >> abolishing the conflict for the very first time. these hard-working people, we hear lots of statements on behalf of the families. these hard-working people preaching in mountains are demonized but there men and women and enough is enough. >> i know people feel strongly about this but we have a responsibility to deliver an affordable public sector pensions system. we rejected the idea of leveling down public sector pensions. what we will deliver in terms of
12:33am
public-sector pension is a generous and fair offer which will give public sector pensions unlike others in our country a defined benefit system. that is why lauren hutton says this is an incredibly generous offer. what a pity it is that the party opposite has left reality and won't back that view. >> andrew begum. >> the prime minister will know that i recently held to my constituency, many of those small businesses complain bitterly about what they have to jump through. what message can the prime minister -- rebuild the economy against bureaucratic opposites. >> that is why we introduced the red tape challenge to make sure these rules are published on line and businesses and individuals can tell us which ones can be scrapped without harming public safety. at the same time we have the one in one out rules the ministers cannot introduce a new
12:34am
regulation until they strapped an existing regulation. this government is determined to scrap unnecessary regulation and held business to employ more people in our country. >> the spending review from prime minister sent to the additional -- and impact. to see what tax credits can see how many more children will be in poverty in coming years. >> what we're doing in terms of the child tax credit is going to be free hundred ninety pounds higher than at the time of the last election. that is a 250 pound increase this year. that is the largest ever increase in the child tax credit and we are adding a further 135 pounds next year. an increase of 5.2%. that is what is happening in terms of child tax credit. let me make this point in addition. if you increase the pension you actually see child poverty
12:35am
figures go up under the definition used by the party opposite. it is right we increase the pension. i don't think you harm the chances of children by giving pension what we have given which is a record cash increase in pensions next year. >> let me ask the prime minister to ensure this house remain a free and democratic institutions culpable will lead to voters and does he share my indignation that some members asked permission -- >> order! order! there is a matter of basic courtesy here. the question from the hon. lady should be heard. i think she has completed her question but it really is a lesson for the future when questions are being asked and they should be heard with courtesy and when the answers are given whatever member is speaking they should be heard with courtesy. the prime minister. >> i think it is genuinely baffling to people that somebody
12:36am
who said they want back strike action while negotiations were under way has come to the house of commons today to speak on behalf of trade union leaders. i want to flashback that even neil kinnock wasn't as bad as that. >> does the prime minister if think it is fair that the chancellor yesterday decided to take three hundred million air strips on the bank and 1.3 billion from working families? is that a fair distribution? the chancellor announced we would be taking 2.5 billion pounds off of the banks not in one year because of a 1-off bonus tax but every single year and it is this government properly putting a tax on the bank. that is the party opposite that year after year gave knighthood to fred goodwin and didn't regulate the banks or tax them properly and gave as the biggest
12:37am
boom and the biggest bust we have to recover from. >> last but not least mr. roger williams. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. i welcome the reduction in corporation tax and that will encourage those businesses to expand 90% of the businesses in my constituency are not incorporated and won't benefit from a reduction. will the prime minister in sure that in the spring budget these businesses and given similar tax incentives so that they can insure they will go to their full potential in the economy and communities they serve. >> appraise the hon. john:for the magnificence specimen underneath his nose and the effort he spent. we are not going to wait for the budget in order to help these businesses. we already extended the rate relief freeze for small businesses and the national loan guarantee sch
12:38am
>> you have been watching the prime minister's questions from the british house of commons. you can watch again on sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern. and watch any time at c- span.org, where you can kind -- find video of other british public affairs programs. tomorrow on "washington journal ," miami guinness looks up where congressional and experts were deficit reduction goes from here. the deputy director of the governors' association talk about state budgets around the country. author of the trucklines for federal employees discusses the cost of the federal employee benefit program. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span.
12:39am
tomorrow on c-span to, a discussion about the economic trends of young adults, and weighs the economy could impact the future middle-class, hosted by the center for american progress. live coverage starts at noon eastern. on c-span 3 tomorrow, and house foreign affairs subcommittee hearing on global efforts to eliminate malaria, and a look at the future of vaccine development. watched live coverage on c-span 3. >> it is convenient to listen to c-span anywhere, with the free radio app. get free streaming audio as well as three television networks. you can also listen to interview programs including "the communicators." it is available wherever you are. find out more at c-span.org/ra
12:40am
dioapp. >> newt gingrich is currently in the lead, with 25% support among likely caucus participants. he is followed by ron paul and mitt romney. last week, mr. gingrich spoke to the iowa republican party at about the upcoming caucuses and the need to elect a new congress. this event was held in johnston, iowa. it is about 45 minutes. >> thank you all for being here this evening. introducing newt gingrich tonight is a pleasure. newt gingrich is a united. -- uniter. american needs to work together more than ever, in an increasingly dangerous world. in congress in the 1990's, newt gingrich worked on a welfare
12:41am
reform, the details of the legislation, so president clinton could sign it. he was instrumental in bringing congress together on the first tax cut in 16 years. that tax cut grew 11 million new jobs. it reduced unemployment from 5.6% to 4.2%. the commons that resulted -- and the accom po -- and the accomplishments that resulted are proof that the problems we have today are temporary as long as we apply the correct solutions. during the recent debates, he has proven to be a uniter again always finding something good to highlight in the other candidates in proposals or their past accomplishments. his approach has had a real impact in the most recent debate and the tone under which they
12:42am
were conducted. finally, and this may be the most important accomplishment in this entire cycle, he has worked hard to address the challenges he faced in his own personal life. we already seen his success when just about four weeks ago, at the iowa fate and freedom coalition dinner, with all hundred people in attendance, he -- with 1200 people in attendance, he received two standing ovations during only a 10 minute speech. tonight, we have a room filled with social moderates and conservatives as another example of the progress of our party is making with an experienced and tested uniter inspiring us. newt gingrich has been through a lot to get to this point. he still had our best interests at heart and those of our nation. speaking for all of us at the polk county republican party, we are thrilled to have him here tonight. we thank all of you for being here. ladies and gentlemen, i invite you to stand and join me in
12:43am
welcoming this genuine statesman back to iowa. newt gingrich! [applause] >> thank you. thank you all. thank you, kevin, for that
12:44am
remarkable introduction. i think you captured exactly what i've been trying to do. i hope that by showing up this evening, for this extraordinary turnout that i have finally made daryl happy. [laughter] he told me early on that i had to come do it. it is an old personal friend of mine. [applause] i like coming back to iowa for many reasons. my wife went to college here and our national campaign chairman is from here. i have many ties here. in terms of my candidacy, i like coming here because i like coming to a state where you could have been out of office for a while, you could have been a little older, you could return and win the governorship. [laughter]
12:45am
i was]terry's birthday party -- birthday partys tonight the other night and i told him what an inspiration to me he was. when you watch the budget deal they got compared to what washington has been like, we could use a lot more of him and a lot less obama in this country. [applause] i am always glad to come back to the state of shock grassley -- chuck grassley. he was the only person that voted with in 1984 for gasahol. that was ethanol when ronald reagan signed into law. it is great to be back. i have to confess that while i was hoping for a wave, we got a
12:46am
tsunami. i thought about what should i talk about tonight? i want to give you a talk that builds off of kevin's introduction. i want to talk about the possibility that we have to rebuild the america that we love. we are a mess. we are a mess in washington, economically, ms with radical -- a mess with radical judges, you can go down the list. i think is wrong to focus primarily on the ms. -- on the mess. we have been here before -- in 1979 and 1980, jimmy carter got us to 13% inflation, 22% interest rates, 10.8% unemployment, the soviet invasion of afghanistan, 444 days of a hostage crisis.
12:47am
finally, in despair, carter gave a famous speech in which he said everything is going to be a lot worse, but at least we can share the misery equally. [laughter] i did not make that up. ronald reagan came along and a theme you may hear next year, he said, "if your brother-inlaw is unemployed, it is called a recession. if you are unemployed, it is called a depression for it if jimmy carter is unemployed, it is called a recovery." [laughter] [applause] so i want to predict to you tonight that the economic recovery will begin late on election night when the country realizes that barack obama is going back to chicago and that
12:48am
the republicans have won control of the senate and. -- of the senate. [applause] literally that evening, investment decisions, job creation decisions, company- launching decisions, will be changing in the light of what is going on. for that to happen, we have to have a team campaign. as your state chairman knows, i am totally committed to a team campaign. i have told the governor that and you can count on me as the nominee being back here helping in the fall. in my whole career has been spent like that. in 1980, and was the first person to organize a capitol steps event with gov. ronald reagan and all of the house and senate candidates.
12:49am
in 1984, we organized a contract -- in 1994, we organized a contract with america and had 350 candidates nationwide running as a team. in 2010, working with american solutions, which helped organize efforts across the country, including here. the great victory was not the u.s. house, but we take up 680 state legislative seats that night and another 25 when the democrats switched. today, we have the largest number of state legislators since 1925. [applause] we need to have a team effort next year. we need to put a team together and win at 18. -- win as a team. i have begun on my website to outline the first stages of a 21st century contract with america to indicate where the team might go. i want to spend a few minutes
12:50am
tonight and talk about why we're doing all of this. this is just not about -- this is not just about petty politics or so we can have a victory party. it is because we have a vision of america as a country that we love, that we feel is, at its core, endangered by policies and we want to set the country back on the right track. why is that worth doing? sometimes we need to stop and revisit what this is all about. this has been, for 225 years, the most successful society in the history of the world. it is extraordinary. you can come from anywhere on the planet and you arrive here and become absorber, you become an american career you quit fighting over the past and start building the future. people who migrate here from serbia and bosnia who would have killed each other and now their kids are on the same
12:51am
soccer team were the same basketball team were the same baseball team. they are in business together, trying to create wealth, because they are americans. people learn to be americans faster than you would have thought possible. but what is this thing and how do we rebuild it? this is far more than incidental data about the debt or the unemployment or whenever you want to say that the news media focus is on. this is the core argument we have with barack obama. he is legitimately a radical. he believes in a world in which the classic america has disappeared. he believes in a world in which the united nations is more important than the united states congress. he believes in a world of international law rather than the u.s. constitution. we will have an opportunity to have a discussion with him next year.
12:52am
let's assume, for a few minutes, that we have one. what would happen? what kind of country would we create? it starts with first principles. i want you to understand that. i began at lincoln did, he said, on his way to his inauguration, when he stopped in philadelphia in february of 1861, he gave a speech at independence hall. he said, he did not know of a single major part of his political beliefs that did not come from the declaration of independence. lincoln was born very core. -- very poor. he had 1.5 years of formal education. he taught himself. he knew that in any other country in the world, he would have had a limited future. but in america, he had an unlimited future. he treasured -- he is the man
12:53am
that brings back to the center of our life the declaration of independence. why is this important? the founding document, it is the base of everything. what does it say? it says we owe these truths to be self evident, not situation ethics, not theoretical philosophy. the founding fathers were seriously, desperately trying to understand the truth of self-government. of who we are and who we can be. that all men are created equal. and yes, there would have all said to you, of course it is inadequate at the present time, of course it does not recognize the role of women, of course it does not fully recognize other problems. but as an aspiration towards which the country should move, it is the boldest, most radical statement in history. this was written in a time of
12:54am
kings, members, czars, dictators. they went on to say, where do our rights start? we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. if, with your help, i end up as president of the united states, i will dedicate eight years to making those were real. -- those words real. [applause] what does that mean? rebuilding the america we love by making the declaration real? let's go back and look at the words. one of the reasons the founding fathers deeply dislike big
12:55am
government is that it fundamentally violated the principle that we are all equal. if you read gordon would's tremendous books on the american revolution, it makes quite clear that the americans are all part of a critique of the british monarchy. they all believe the following things -- the government is always corrupt. not because people bought each other -- because people bride each other, but because decisions are made to pay all local political interests at the cost of the general good. might i say the word "solyndra" as an example. [laughter] the longer i've thought about the possibility that i have to serve, the more i realize that we have to clean up congress as much as we have to clean up the executive branch. [applause]
12:56am
and i have also come to realize that we need an american campaign, not a republican campaign and we need to be open to every person of every background who shares our commitment. [applause] you and i know that is going to make some of our friends very uncomfortable. but i think if we truly want to rebuild america, we have to be prepared to make some of our friends very uncomfortable. [applause] in that context, the founding fathers go on to say, "we are endowed by our creator." this is the heart of the american argument.
12:57am
where do our rights come from? the founding fathers unanimously agreed god endows each one of you personally. which means you are personally sovereign. notice it says that the rights are unalienable. that means no judge, no bureaucrats, no politician can take away your rights. this is the most radical statement in political history. it says we're centering sovereignty on you. which is why you are a citizen. you are not a subject. in europe, there were subjects. it is this wonderful story of, frankly, -- wonderful story of franklin, who goes to europe. he leaves boston at 13 to go to his uncle at philadelphia, learned how to become a printer, becomes a successful businessman, a great writer,
12:58am
writes a brilliant almanac and autobiography, becomes a scientist -- the only american, i believe, admitted to the royal academy of science, a world-renowned scientist who discovered electricity, discovered the lightning rod, develops the franklin stove, is the first postmaster general of the united states, an amazing, energetic person. he is hired by pennsylvania to go to london. and to represent the colony. as gordon wood road, "he left america and englishmen the day after years of living in london and realizing that the aristocracy would never accept it, no matter how rich, how brilliant, how personable, he
12:59am
would never be accepted. he came back to america and american. -- he came bac tck to america an america. that is why we are citizens and not subjects. that is why the environmental protection -- the government is servants of the american people. we are not servants of the american government. part of what got me back into public life was the ninth circuit decision in 2002, that one nation under god as part of the pledge of allegiance was
1:00am
unconstitutional. i conclusion was, if we had got into a point -- looking out on the first national cemetery at gettysburg, i concluded, if we now have a judge is so radical and so anti-american that they believe that even the reference to one nation under god is unconstitutional that the time has come to draw a line in the sand. i wrote a paper on judicial reform and i can promise you that one of the first acts i will propose in congress will be to close the office of judge barry in san antonio who is a uniquely anti-religious bigots. not only do students not pray at their graduation, they could use the word addiction or indication and they do not ask the audience to stand printed to
1:01am
not reference got and they do not ask for a moment of silence. if any of these things were violated, he would put the superintendent in jail. we do not have to tolerate anti- religious judges who seek to impose in this country a fundamental violation of the declaration. how do you explain we are and doubt by our creator if it is illegal to say our creator. looked at the by is built into the academic community against american history, against the american founding fathers, against american institutions. [applause] among these in alienable rights, our life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
1:02am
i want to take a minute to talk about the last one because there is a key example of the key changes that will scarcely rebuild the america we love. the term "pursuit of happiness" in the scottish enlightenment word came from actually references virtue. it does not reference hedonism and acquisition. and the concept in that generation was that true happiness came from berkshire. they were very passionate. i wrote a small book and you look at the founding fathers and it is amazing how deeply they felt this. if people refused self discipline, they cannot possibly brief free. -- be free.
1:03am
jefferson said that ignorance and freedom cannot possiblbe po. the founding fathers right religion and knowledge being important, of being vital. they said up public schools. but notice with the order was. the really wanted us to understand how to live the good life, not how to live a rich life. and they felt it in their bones. what does that mean? again, i am warning you if you decide you really want to support me. [laughter] it means i have a passionate dedication to the work ethic. i think we need to reinstall the work ethic. [laughter] -- [applause] the president said the other day that the american people have grown lazy.
1:04am
that is the jimmy carter system. once it starts to fail, somebody else must of bennett. he could not have done it because he was perfect. you must of done it because, after all, how could he have doneis tha-- how could he have it? [laughter] the president's comment on laziness fits into the concern of "the york times" for inequality. the rise of bureaucracy has encourage laziness and crippled the poor. we have created an environment where we send children off to school whose only function is to pay off the union. loss angeles unified -- los angeles unified is the largest
1:05am
district. if you live in a neighborhood where no one goes to work, if you have nobody near you who can teach you how to work, the number one thing you need to learn is how to shop. and then you need to learn that there is -- is have to show up. and then you need to learn that there is a connection between showing up and money. i get into this 20 years ago when liberals were contemptuous of what they describe as hamburger-flipping jobs. i was a fan of mcdonald's because i like to steady institutions that succeed. mcdonald's has taught more people to show up for work then any other institution in america. that is right. when you're young and you show up and you flip burgers, you do
1:06am
not make a lot of money. but you can rise, one day own a mcdonald's, own whole companies. if you look at america's business leaders who started like that, it is amazing. when i talk to first generation millionaires and billionaires, they all went to work young. the other day, i got an e-mail from my granddaughter who is 12. she said, i am writing you on my pad. i wrote back, how did you get one? she said i have said all of my money for eight months and i bought it. [applause] and i wrote my daughter and she wrote that approach was that she would not buy anything else, no candy, no movies. she had a goal. she was going to get to that goal.
1:07am
that is what you want the poor children in america to learn. that is what i was trying to say the of the day when we said -- when i said we should contemplate sears the that the poorest children in the poorest neighborhoods should have part- time jobs in the schools they have to go to. and the headline said that gingrich wants to trap the pour as janitors. the master janitor ought to do the dangers hard work. but i will tell you personally that i believe that kids could mop the floor and get paid for it and it would be ok. [applause] candidly, this is one of the great fears of the liberals. they learned that at the end of the week they got money for doing work. they might want to do more work. [laughter] in which case, they will get more money and then they will
1:08am
cease to be poor. and then who will the rich liberals worry about? [laughter] you have to think about this whole model. i want to say two things in closing about this concept of rebuilding the america we love. the first is i want to bring a lot of ideas to the table. some will be workable, some not. i will ask all of you to bring ideas to the table. the old order is not working. therefore, we ought to have the courage to be americans. i would tell people that the wright brothers decided they were fascinated with flying. they had no academic degrees could they got no government grants. they built their own wind tunnel. they studied birds. and when they went down to -- the one thing they did with the government is they asked the weather service for where in
1:09am
america was the best updraft and it turned out to be kittyhawk. in the early summer, they put a lot of wood on the train and went down to kittyhawk for three years. they always took a lot of extra wood. they knew something very profound. they did not know how to fly. [laughter] therefore, they were going to crash the plane. [laughter] and they would get up in the morning and they would go out and have a cup of coffee and then they would launch the plane and it would crash. and they would fix it and talk about what went wrong and practice some more. they did this for three years. on december 1903, it flew. the distance it flew was shorter
1:10am
than the wing span of a boeing 747. it never got high enough to get over the fuselage of a boeing 747. and one brother ran along next to keep it from flipping over. [laughter] but it flew. less than four years later, they flew in their plan around the island of manhattan and 1.5 million people sought. that is how fast progress happens. why am i telling you this story? because i am asking you to embark with me on a voyage of invention, discovery, to be as bold and courageous as the wright brothers, to reach out in education, in health, in immigration, in national security, in job security, in every aspect of american life to rebuild this extraordinary country.
1:11am
i cannot guarantee you success. but as churchill said in the darkest moment of english history, i can promise you sweat, toil, and tears. i can promise you to do everything i can for my grandchildren. i will not as a single one of you to be for me. because if you are for me, you will vote, go home, and hope that newt fixes it. it is impossible even for the president to take on rebuilding on this scale. but i will be with you so that, side-by-side for eight years, we remind the congress of why we hired them. remind the governor and legislature, remind the school board and the city council and the county commission. and i also want you to remind
1:12am
me. i will set up a social network to tell me that that is not working or this is a better idea or the world has changed and you better switch gears. finally, if we reduce the size of washington, we have to grow citizenship back up. and i want to be able to turn to you and say, if you are with me, i need your help to do this. this is the most important election, i believe, in our lifetime. if obama is reelected and he comes to believe that his radicalism was vindicated, despite the economy, despite the deficit, despite everything, i cannot imagine what his second term will look like. this is a really big deal. i will say one last thing. if i am your nominee, which will help, i will challenge the president since 7 3-hour
1:13am
lincoln-style debates with a timekeeper and no moderates. [applause] to be fair, -- [laughter] i will agree that he can use a teleprompter. [laughter] after all, if you had to defend obamacare, would you not want a teleprompter? [laughter] [applause] some of our friends think you will not agree. i think there are three reasons you will agree. first, he announced in did your 2007 in springfield. second, he is pure ego.
1:14am
how does a colombia-howard law of thee, haeditor harvard law review and say he is afraid to stand on the same platform with the west georgia college professor. [laughter] but third, as many of you know, i have studied history. unlike the history, i studied american history. [laughter] [applause] abraham lincoln, in 1858, had been out of office for 10 years. he had only serve one term of office in the legislature. when he announces against the most famous senator in the united states and presumed next president, at 105 days left, he says let's debate every day. douglas said i do not think so.
1:15am
so for the next several weeks, lincoln arrived the next day and rebutted douglas. the newspaper coverage was always lincoln's rebuttal. so douglas said all right, i will join you in the debates. there were nine congressional districts. lincoln had been chasing him. now there were seven. if you help me become the nominee, in my acceptance speech in tampa, if the president has not yet agreed, i will announce that, as of that evening, the white house will be mice schedule -- will be my schedule. and wherever the president goes, i will arrive four hours later and respond to his speech. [applause]
1:16am
just remember, with your help, we will rebuild the country we love. but only if we, the american people, are willing to do it. thank you, good luck, and god bless you. [applause]
1:17am
>> if you just give us a moment, we have a few housekeeping things we would like to address. first of all, we are having a book signing after an hour dinner this evening. newt gingrich will be outside. we would like to have everyone exit through this door. no. 2, there are some people i would like to thank before we leave. you cannot do these things without support at home. i want to thank my wife b j. [applause] we have three boys under 5 and she is doing so much every day to make me free for this. i want to thank darrell and
1:18am
.aren karamkearny [applause] and i want to thank all of our volunteers because our volunteers are amazing. we are asking the press to hold where they are. we will ask everyone to renew their rock kelly membership in january. we are not finished here, folks. we will the nine obama the electoral votes for iowa. we want to let tom latham and we want to elect a republican supervisors so we can cut property taxes in this county. [laughter] -- [applause] in closing, be sure to attend your caucus. we need you. and please turn out for our
1:19am
general election. thank you for your help tonight. i could not be more proud to work people -- work with people of this caliber. thank you and good night. [applause] >> they say this is hot.
1:20am
is it seeing strange you? ok. do you not have enough stuff after one day? surely you can get a mike. can you get me from there? i am highly confused now. i cannot figure this out. i have no idea of what we are doing. do you want to take charge? what are we doing. they're going to ask questions. all right. it is a media what? this is the stuff that arce
1:21am
hates -- that rc hates. you're going to have fun. i am only confident if the people of iowa and new hampshire and south dakota and florida think i am right. but i encouraged by tonight and i am encouraged by what i am seeing. the american people have to decide. they certainly seem to be favoring substance and somebody who is positive and somebody who's only opponent is barack obama. so i feel encouraged. >> i know you talked a lot [inaudible]udio >> i think it depends on what they end up doing. i would ask your relatives. at what point is it ok to be doing babysitting.
1:22am
you have 12 and 13-year-olds now own companies. i am not talking about going back to a 19th century situation. i once did a program called earning by learning for i took money i made in speeches as young as second grade and pay kids in the summer to read books at $2 per book. a young girl got 83 books read in will -- 83 books read in one summer. i am looking for ways to say to people how do we get them engaged in learning? that effort can lead to reward and you have a better future if you do things. i am open to how we experiment with it. i think the country has to decide. a different state may do a different thing.
1:23am
some of this can be done in the private sector by the boys' and girls' club. but something that says the best wiggin -- the best way to get poor children a chance to rise is giving them an opportunity to work and connecting work with money so they understand why it is to their advantage to be a part of the world of work. >> if people start ramping up their ad campaigns, will you have the money to compete there? >> we will have enough money. we will never have as much money as mitt romney, but we will be competitive. >> i have to confess that this is disorienting. this is such a rapid change that
1:24am
we are having to rethink our own internal operations right now and where we are. i would not have given this speech for two weeks because it would not have seemed to make sense for an underdog to be appeared talking about the totality of the future. but the fact is, given where we are, i think this is the right space. this is what a gingrich presidency will look like. this is how different it would be. >> can you articulate why that vision of the gingrich presidency [inaudible] >> know, the american people will decide that. the american people are really smart. i am not interested in distinguishing myself from romney i am happy to be you i
1:25am
am. the only person i want to focus on is barack obama. >> are you saying that the only thing that distinguishes you from mitt romney is that he is not happy to be his? >> i am really happy to distinguish myself from barack obama. >> you have said in other settings [inaudible] >> remember a said a minute to go this is very disorienting. given where we are today, the only person i want to focus on is barack obama and the only two things my campaign will focus on is real solutions and the president. we will not get involved in trying to compare ourselves with our friends. we will let our friends from the campaigns they want to. we will focus on those two.
1:26am
probably later on tonight when you guys be the sin. i do not know. so do so much media -- is hard to get around advertising. >> will you turn the cheek in a debate if governor romney comes after you? >> i did that the other week. of course i am. it depends on what you mean. if he puts his hand on my shoulder, that might be different. what? >> [inaudible] >> it would be an enormous advantage if we win here. i cannot tell you tonight that we will win. but we have an opportunity to win. it would be an enormous advantage to win here. thank you all very much. thank you, everyone.
1:27am
>> thank you for being here. >> thank you. great to be here. >> the al poll released saturday night shows newt gingrich is currently leading, with 25% support among likely caucus participants. he is followed by ron paul and mitt romney. now, a closer look with a "de molina -- des moines register"
1:28am
writer. >> a new poll is out, and gingrich is on top. give us the details. what do the numbers look like? guest: you have a tie it with michele bachman and herman cain, then -- host: what are the details? guest: we talked to 401 likely caucus goers. host: you wrote that gingrich's support stood at just 15% in october. his rapid rise mirrors the dramatic fall of herman cain.
1:29am
you pointed out the october poll, with 23% support. quite a turnaround. guest: definitely, even before the new allegations about ginger white. the day before that, he was already down to 12% in iowa. as we continue pulling, his polls really tanked. >> -- host: there is one notable finding. gingrich in ascendancy has further potential to grow. tell us more. guest: there is a lot of room for newt gingrich. the intensity is there. they like him and pressed him on the number of different aspects. one binding is he gained more herman cain supporters than any other candidate. he went up 3 points without herman cain in the race. he is the most of ronald reagan-
1:30am
like. he is the most credible on the economy and business. and when you combine the first and second choice votes for newt gingrich, you get to 43%. >> take us to the ground in iowa, and the air. how do you expect the leading candidates, beginning with newt gingrich, to approach the state in the remaining weeks before the caucuses? >> his organization here has been really paper thin. he hasn't been organizing very much for the last few months which is a danger in iowa. you really have to work to do well in the iowa caucuses. that's where ron paul is very, very strong. and mitt romney has an excellent organization here. his staff has worked very, very hard to get him organized.
1:31am
so it's going to be an interesting race between now and the next month to see who can really get those people out on january 3rd. >> and we know how important that organization is in iowa. how about telling? what kind of a role does it play? >> newt gingrich has not been in television at all in aowa and yet he shot up 18 points in the last month where as ron paul has been in iowa and he has a nice gain. mitt romney just started advertising friday with a fiscal related message, really tried to appeal a business related republicans and independents. >> is this the last poll you'll do or is there more coming and what are you going to be looking for? >> more coming. and our last poll will be just kind of dwhosh do -- who do we think is going to win the iowa
1:32am
caucuses. >> jennifer kay cobs from "the des moines reporter." >> and in my view this is a time for america to get serious about our challenges. andly go through all of them but the big one that i started with is our budget and our spending. >> if investment is not landing in your marketplace then it's landing somewhere else. so capital is a coward, you've got argue and it will flee if it's not landing in your marketplace. and if it's not landing in your marketplace, it's lappedsing somewhere else. -- landing somewhere else. >> that's an interesting theory. it makes a lot of sense but to go to that debate right now and have a two-year debate on a fair tax, we need to do something now. >> read the latest comments and political reporter and link to their it's partners on
1:33am
c-span.org/campaign2012. >> tomorrow on "washington journal" mayamacgiineas looks at where we go from here. barry anderson talks about the condition of the state budget. and walton franchise author of "the checkbook guide" discusss the cost of the health benefit program. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. on swrvings span. tomorrow a discussion about the economic trends of young adults and the way the young economy could help the middle-class. you can watch live coverage starting at noon eastern on c-span2. and on c-span 3, a sub foreign affairs committee on the global
1:34am
efforts to eliminate malaria. watch live coverage starting at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> it's so streent listen to c-span any time anywhere, with the free c-span radio app, you get free streaming radio as well as all c-span television networks 24/7. you can listen to our programs including "q&a," "newsmakers," "the communicators" and "last word." on wednesday, the former communications director to former prime minister tony blair criticized the british press and talked about his relationship while serving under tony blair. the inquirey was established by david cameron followed by questions of cell phone hacking
1:35am
working for rupert murdoch. this is a little over two hours. >> please sit down and make yourself comfortable. >> your full name. >> alice stair john campbell. >> now, you're hear today to provide testimony. since then, four things have happened. first of all, i believe you've signed the statement is that
1:36am
right? and therefore it is evidence. you've made three minor changes on the version that was provided. may i just identify for their benefit. >> yep. >> i'm working from the pagination of the right and giving the last five numbers. page 21094. right in the middle of the page after the news of the world in italics a name has been redacted. >> yep. >> that's in line with mr. hears' evidence. final paragraph. >> a manuscript from the version which is going to be on the screen.
1:37am
in substitution for on the fowcation. >> yep. >> and then page 211019, mr. campbell, the last two lines. sorry. the final sentence running on to the start of the next page, that is now being deleted. is this correct? >> that's correct. >> now, mr. campbell, it is public knowledge that your statement with -- leaked or rather mr. stain obtained it somehow. do you have any comment to make about that due to insisting inquirey? >> i spoke about this on sunday. your concern and my concern was that my final statement had been leaked. i've now checked against website all the different
1:38am
drafts that i've checked, i would like to say that the process, this is all my own work. i stand by every word in this document which is the one that you've got, which was the only one sent to inquirey. the process that i went through is that i sent it to different people, at different stages, lawyer, three people in the media and some former colleagues in politics. i've not been able to check which, again, is now often mr. stain's website but i've not been able to check to whom i sent the draft. i'm confident that none of the people that i sent it to would ever have given it to mr. stain. but he got a hold of an earlier draft which is why i'm pleased now be able to public -- publish the final version.
1:39am
>> thank you, mr. campbell. go to your statement. >> just before we start, mr.campbell this is and people will see if they haven't already seen a formidable piece of work. and without going to it at all, i wanted to acknowledge my gratitude to you for the immense effort that you have put into preparing this inquirey. thank you. >> if you kindly look at the third page of your statement, again on the pagination of the right, it's 21059. it says to make it clear why you're hear this day. it's irrelevant to the relationship between politicians that inquired your attention to a statement from -- that you wrote in 2004.
1:40am
if the public knew about the way certain sections of the media operated, they would be horrified. they've asked you to elaborate on that, and indeed that's what you've done in 25 pages. the scope of your evident is directed to that issue. because we all know about your career at 10 downing street. could you fill us in a little bit in your earlier career as a journalist. >> well, i trained as a journalist in the merrill group same one as nick davis that you heard yesterday. that involved training in the basics of journalism, getting qualifications and then on the job training in local and regional papers. i then started to work as a freelance for the daily mirror. i worked for other newspaper titles as a freelance. i became a staff reporter at
1:41am
"the mirror." i left briefly to work for "today" the launch. i went back to "the mirror." i was at "the mirror" as a journalist. and again, for the latter stages of my journalistic career before i went to work for tony blair. >> and you made it clear in your statement that there are many aspects of the press in journalism of which you are proud either personally or vicariously, is that correct? >> grateful i am. i was one of the executives. he said british journalism is the best in the world. but i think it is important to remember that some of british journalism is the best in the world. i think you saw -- i watched your evidence. they missed an inquirey
1:42am
yesterday. they saw some very different aspects of british journalism which included the best and the worst. but the best i would defend and i do defend a free press. my argument that runs through this document that i've given to you is that the press that is being -- the freedom of the press that is being defended most loudly by those who are describe anybody who dares criticize them as an attack of the freedom of the press that that has become oppressed that it's barely worth defending. what i think we should defend is a genuinely free press. and at the moment i think we have a press that has just become frankly putrid in many of its elements. let me emphasize, that not on journalists and not all titles and the terb thing that happened and i suppose i was the at the point that the culture was changing without a doubt. but what's happened is a very, very small number of people
1:43am
have actually completely changed the newspaper industry. frankly they've now dispatched every name of every reporter in the country. >> you elaborated fully. 21060, three lines down, please, mr. campbell. the center of in our press has moved to a bad place. of of the leaders and practitioners have accelerated rate -- accelerated desperation. impact comes ahead of fairness
1:44am
and anything goes to get the story first. ask that you please in your own words to give us the five bullet points, the summary of the debit side. first point is that whether a story is true, i in some of our media organizations noup counts for less than whether it makes a but i thought mr. pepian's was pretty compelling. defined as of negativity in which the prominence of weight coverage is not important but whether it fits the agenda of the group that is story. and the second thing that the newspaper regularly demand m of the media which run by the press for the
1:45am
been exposed as utterly ineffectual. which means inaccuracy and distortion and invasion of goes on and continues -- impunity. a culture in which anyone dares to question the media at any level is accused of trying to take the country into some kind of totalitarianism and free press. beyond the specific issue which criminal activity of phone hacking, i think these are, if you like bigger scenes that i the inquirey and that parliament would look at. >> the decent of the market is one of your themes. do you have a view as to any reasons for that? >> i think it is -- as i say on page before that newspaper groups are operating in
1:46am
competitive marketplace. advent of 24/7 news on the internet has forced them to adapt from what they were. you can take these proceedings. people are able to watch it live on your own website. thousands tweets being put out about given. that means that when you come to tomorrow and the newspapers, they're behind the curve. and rely ever more upon impact which as i say has come ahead of standards and fairness and also rely upon becoming and political players. they've actually become -- newspapers have become part physical process now without any accountability, the other parts fiscal process are
1:47am
>> you also make it clear and i'm moving now to 1063, competing in the a slew of celebrity perhaps the ramifications of that are fairly obvious. but in your own words, mr. campbell, what is the result of that? >> well, the celebrity culture is taken a pretty fierce grip on virtually all of the media, not just the newspaper but television as well. and they're in this kind of bizarre relationship where the sort of reality tv perhaps and the slones and the x factors create celebrities which then become the sort of staple diet for the newspapers and the magazines. and these magazines have been incredibly successful. they kind of -- they're feeding a public desire and demand for this obsession with celebrity. and that's forced the newspapers, i think to set
1:48am
themselves in direct competition with them. i don't blame them for that. they have businesses there that are trying to stay live in very difficult, competitive circumstances but it does mean that the whole of media has moved substantially down market. >> the problem of the pressure is exerted with 27 years in the internet. and other pleasures you allude to to 21063 pressures created by economic considerations namely fewer journalists, most spaces to fill, baisley in time to do it. in your own words, what are they? >> well, i can remember when i was first on the -- "the daily mirror." you went into the room and there were dozens and dozens of
1:49am
journalists there. since newspapers back then were much, much bigger. i remember having to fill this huge space online but back to the internet. so there, you said that she's become something of a desk job where they sit there, rewrite the other newspapers, rewriting. copy. actually journalism -- if you look as a craft they're -- there aren't that many doing it. and i think that again has just been the force of competitive pressure which has forced newspapers to cut down on costs, cut down on the number of journalists that they employ. that's the consequence of their increasing reliance on public detectives. it's been a huge instrumental factor on newspapers as they are. >> it comes more generally and
1:50am
demands the speed means that they let time to check the accuracy of stories and more the propensity of inaccurate stories, is that correct? >> you worked the night shift, it's part of your job to make sure even within the building, not too many people knew it was in the front page because the competition was going to take place morning in newsstands. now the competition takes place instantly on to tell vision and across the internet. and pages are being sent to sky news because that's where they're making the first impact. so in to tell vision they have no idea whether the stories are true or false. but they discuss them as though they were true. so he is juiced to be about trying to fine out which is true. now, it is largely a discussion about the process of
1:51am
establishing whether sometimes might be true. so it's set toly changed how news is defined by those with are in journal. >> you summarize that point. 21065 four lines down. this is inevitable when it comes to the pace of change. but it's probably about learning about the procedure. not much since the process that's getting to the truth which often gets lost in that process. >> yeah. >> and then you refer to the old editorial which the demuzz in which you had experienced in the 1980's and those ribbons have rather speed up. again, i do understand why that is happening. i think it is the result of this phenomenal technical change that has been spent through combleed industry.
1:52am
i i think two new people have stopped to think what is this actually doing to our profession, to our trade as journalists, as journalism. >> i'm part of the same phenomenon under the heading a changed -- heading a change. full stories can become news but the facthat they're reported, it's because journalists will check them out. we'll give a recent example. rumors that the dean politicians was gay. that was incorrect. it was sufficient to be able to run it. and of course this is further come by kated as you've seen. it's further complicated by
1:53am
journalists in quotes who operate on the internet because they can say what they look and then it's out there and then the rest of it you sort of have to discover around trying to catch up with something that's already around the world. again, it's a totally changed context. i think sometimes that we -- i mean, i do not the shupes are still the important important part of this debate. but i think there's a danger, the pace of change as this thing moves so fast that we're even getting left behind now in terms of how we're winning debating again. >> you pointed out next page 21066. the internet is not subject to any regulatory at all. that's certainly true with some with mr. stain.
1:54am
let true in relationship with denise press institution but also uses the net. that's what a newspaper are as a disadvantage. and i -- i've thought about. -- i don't know what kind you do about this part of the way the music industry is developing. but i think it's something that i know the french government is looking at whether there is something, regulating jourmism on the internet, i think it's a very, very difficult thing to do. but i think we have to think about it. what is happening in the e.u., the press regulation of the internet. but not today. you think about it and find a sucted solution. i'd be very great if we didn't know. i'm sure the press would really
1:55am
like you asking about regulations. >> i'm actually asking everybody to think about it. there's -- i'm not singling you out. >> thank you. your next theme page 21067 under the heading when his see the yo becomes inhumane. and the classic example of that is the case of mccanns. i think if anything buy assessment here and gave before the evident. the inhumanity of covers that surrounded them. you're right to point out indeed we were told in evidence that that they were in similar
1:56am
treatment. now, let's go to page 21068 towards the bottom. >> the article read "the hounding of britney spears." i haven't been able to find a copy of that. link. able to elaborate? i wrote that at the time was to make the point that -- there comes a point people in public the entertainment are deemed be such big feelers that you and it doesn't matter. princess of whales she died you can putter category and some
1:57am
service people as well. put that in show you that since then, the distinkets between northeast -- tisstinket between these and or nair people have broken down. i remember watching the way -- missing. people. they thought they were using the media to help them in the hunt for their child. was the media was using them to be built into the kind of news which they subsequently became. so that they became anything goes people. and you can say anything, do say in my statement, nobody from the press complaints commission just on here?
1:58am
it was so obvious anybody that was watching the television. i think celebrities are entitled to certain rights as well. the distinction has completely vanished. fault of becomes news with inhumane treatment. britney spears seemed that at she was deeply disturbed. these shots of convoys and cars at the hospital. you think does nobody stand say, should we be some people do. them.
1:59am
had richard peppy yesterday. there aren't many to have desivened what they consider to inhumane activity. >> you said admitted. think i was paraphrasing from something you said at the time. >> it's the bottom of this page 21069, you refer to a dinner attended last year and you introduced the editor of "heat" magazine and tell us a little bit about that encounter please, mr. campbell. >> we were perfectly friendly and amicable. he was sort of a charming

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)